DokuWiki

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

=====Misbruik van recht=====
  - [[Misbruik#Aantekeningen|Aantekeningen]]
  - [[Misbruik#Regelgeving|Regelgeving]]
  - [[Misbruik#Jurisprudentie|Jurisprudentie]]
  - [[Misbruik#Literatuur|Literatuur]]

----

====1.	Aantekeningen====

===1.1  Verhuurstructuren dmv samenwerkingsverbanden===
**BNB 2000/298**

Met de verhuur van de ligboxenstal streefde belanghebbende kennelijk een BTW-besparing na. Een handelwijze welke door wetswijziging in 1995 thans niet meer mogelijk is. Wel doen zich momenteel in de praktijk vele verhuurstructuren met roerende zaken voor. In het bijzonder instellingen werkzaam in de gezondheidszorg trachten door huurstructuren de BTW-druk op kostbare apparatuur enigszins te mitigeren.
Uit het arrest HR 25 juli 2000, nr. 35 888 ( V-N 2000/38.19) blijkt dat daarbij ook gebruik wordt gemaakt van samenwerkingsverbanden waarin de hurende instelling als vennoot participeert. De door die instellingen beoogde BTW-gevolgen zullen door de Belastingdienst niet met succes kunnen worden bestreden door de betrokken partijen te vereenzelvigen. Hooguit kan sprake zijn van een fiscale eenheid. Uit BNB 1994/71 blijkt echter dat een dergelijke eenheid eenvoudig valt te vermijden. De door de staatssecretaris van Financiën aangekondigde bestrijding van dergelijke huurstructuren vereist dan ook een andere aanpak.

===1.2 Abuse of Law in Direct and Indirect Taxation===
Peter Wattel 10 september 2021, Conference Ben Terra

* Emsland Starke, C-110/99 first case on abuse. Paras. 52-54.
  * From uniform EU law to harmonized vat law to harmonized direct tax law to treaty law 
  * C-6/16 Eqiom and C-14/16 Eurospark: on single principle throughout EU law
  * C-524/15 Menci. CJEU allowed a second criminal proceeding. Reason: VAT = own resource. National penalty was not sufficient according to CJEU: adding an extra penalty to make sure it is effective etc.
  * C-318/10, Siat. Burden of proof. But criteria low-tax jurisdiction too vague, hence no abuse. Legal certainty requires clear conditions
  * C251/16 Cussen. no legal certainty for people who abuse the law. Contrary to Siat according to Wattel?
  * C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-229/16 N Luxembourg 1. --> even if abuse not a written principle, not implemented in national law, still abuse can be applied as unwritten principle --> legal certainty?
  * If Halifax: redefinition. Also advantages of redefinition must be granted! Same in C-251/16 Cussens para. 46-48. But how does that relate to direct taxation? E.g. artificial group loan from high to low tax jurisdiction. --> refuse deduction
  * C-196/4 Cadbury Schweppes: __no general presumption of tax evasion__
  * C-196/4 Cadbury Schweppes:para. 51: wholly artificial arrangements
  * C-390/15 RPO, para. 54. Must anti abuse rules be codified by the EU legislator itself? Manifest error.
  * C-251/16 Cussens, para. 32. formal conditions of the law are **not** in fact met? Contrary to Emsland Starke and Halifax? Wattel: this is not a matter of abuse, the law is simply not met.
  * C-251/16 Cussens: only or essential aim --> should be essential (not only, like in Cadbury Schweppes)
  * C-103/09, Weald Leasing. If at arm's length, then there is no abuse?
  * C-484/19, Lexel AB, para. 56. If at arm's length no abuse (not artificial)
  * C-524/04 Thin Cap GLO, para. 81. Abuse can also exist if loan would normally not be granted under these conditions. According to Peter Wattel: Not only a matter of the price or conditions, you must also look at the transaction itself.
  * C-116/16 and C-117/16 Danish beneficial ownership cases. Abuse must be applied even if not transposed in national law.
  * T-516/18 General Court: **if MS does not apply national anti abuse rules, than that amounts to state aid**.

----

David Hummel

Works for Kokott.
Professor Leipzig

* Recent developments VAT fraud and avoidance
  * C-4/20, Alti (chamber of 5!)
  * C-108/20 - FA Wilmersdorf (order)
  * Alti: liability for interest of VAT debt of other person. Alti knew Fotomag was a fraudster
  * If you know about fraud, then you are a fraudster yourself?
  * Willemsdorf case: dangerous case! Problem: husband/employee sold goods to third party for 80 mio, no invoices issued. Customer took deduction from fake invoices. Next, right of deduction of Willemsdorf (company of wife) is denied. DE Tax Authorities: knew or should have known of fraud. Company did not have any benefit of the fraud, prices were normal. Is this really knew or should have known?
  * State benefits from the fraud! CJEU only issues an order.
  * Not paying VAT by contract partner is sufficient to say that you know or should have known. Is that correct?

Ole Gjems-Onstad
Emeritus, Norway

====2.	Regelgeving====

----

====3.	Jurisprudentie====

===3.1  Keuzevrijheid===
[[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0255&from=en|Halifax]] \\ CJEU 21 February 2006, Case C-255/02, Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Development Services Ltd and County Wide Property Investments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ECLI:EU:C:2006:121 \\ **73.** Moreover, it is clear from the case-law that a trader’s choice between exempt transactions and taxable transactions may be based on a range of factors, including tax considerations relating to the VAT system (see, in particular, BLP Group , paragraph 26, and Case C-108/99 Cantor Fitzgerald International [2001] ECR I-7257, paragraph 33). Where the taxable person chooses one of two transactions, the Sixth Directive does not require him to choose the one which involves paying the highest amount of VAT. On the contrary, as the Advocate General observed in point 85 of his Opinion, taxpayers may choose to structure their business so as to limit their tax liability.

===3.2  Niet overleggen documenten===
HvJ 9 september 2021, zaak C-294/20, GE Auto Service Leasing GmbH \\
Het Unierecht moet aldus worden uitgelegd dat het feit dat een belastingplichtige die verzoekt om teruggaaf van de belasting over de toegevoegde waarde (btw), de door de belastingdienst gevraagde documenten niet tijdens de administratieve procedure overlegt maar dit spontaan doet tijdens latere procedures, geen rechtsmisbruik oplevert.

----

====4.	Literatuur====

----

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International